Where I grew up, out in the county, we had zoning laws restricting our ability to sell the land; the housing density was set low. And there were no restrictions on property care; one neighbor had a tarp roof on one of his buildings. The other had an unkempt house and a large backyard filled with broken and rusted out cars, concealed only by unmowed grass. The neighbor across the street was a farmer who used manure sprinklers to send 60 foot sprays of manure into the air, which smelled very bad. So I'm a bit familiar with some of the reasons for zoning.
You say you could build a tannery on your property without zoning laws. First off, getting rid of zoning laws doesn't mean getting rid of the idea that one has rights so long as you don't harm others.
Secondly, would you build a tannery on your property? Do you have the room? Would such a placement be economically efficient? Would you want to live with a tannery on your property? Would the homeowners association let you?
In short, why would people act out these worst case scenarios?
People got along just fine without zoning laws for a long time, without the "industries in neighborhoods" you warn against. You say zoning has been proven necessary - well, how so?
I don't buy for a second the economic welfare argument. Companies aren't going to make stupid decisions just because a lack of zoning lets them. And there are economic benefits to building similar stores and industry together. Finally, individual companies are much better at making economic decisions for themselves than the government is at imposing economic rules. Government control in zoning is just as bad as control over the general economy. The economy would be more efficient without zoning, just as it is without centralized government planning over industry.
As for health - as I said before, the lack of zoning shouldn't mean you can just set up industries that are harmful to neighbors.
Finally - Houston Texas has no zoning laws, and they get along fine, without the terrible scenarios you warn against coming to pass. So I dare say it's proven that you don't need zoning laws for a modern functioning city.
Taking up arable land? Is the land his or not? Or is it part of some giant community supply?He set out ot break planning laws and disadvantage others by taking up arable land with a mansion and building illegally in a way that a poorer man would not.
If he's really taking up arable land, then his income will drop and the price of farm goods rise as the supply of arable land decreases. So if a lot of farmers use their land for something else, the price of farm goods will rise a noticeable amount. This means farmers will have to give up more potential income to build more houses on their land, thus compelling some farmers to get rid of extraneous buildings and use the land for farming again. In short, the use or not of arable land will balance itself out fine.
As for being rich - well those who work hard and are successful are able to do more than poor people. It's the reward for being successful.
But a poor person should still have the right to build as they see fit on their land, even if it's just a small shack instead of a large house.
CR
Bookmarks